[J m HofMarN]

Only on tuesdays.

[Deepsycher]

As again perhaps they "censor the internet for their ideas which appears to be non profitable, and some try to sensor the internet to sue for profit, whilst censoring the accused in court."

[SimeSublime]

Only on tuesdays.

I love when people take on my slang.

[Dr Lecter]

my point is that; at least the communists feel the need to lie to its people... they're still trying to convince everyone that the world is a happy place. our governments passses laws that allow businessess to evict you from your home because some supermarket needs a car park.

I can't believe your tempting me to make that post again!

[Deepsycher]

Yes I do not know what to believe anymore after reading, as well as “feeling the need to lie to people”, how about “feeling the need to torture people” as a means to brainwash in order to make them believe. A society that appears to look civilised, but may not be inside by working against its citizens by watching every move they make. I can see it is not easy to raise human rights issues because the excuse is probably based on a secret which is valued more than the citizens in this case. I thought communism was about equal opportunities, but how can that be equal for secrets like these only to be known by certain privileged people who are in control, and the tactic of brainwashing people unfairly for what they think of believe in? Sounds to me more like dictatorship.

Also reading that someone got 10 years just for talking about the jail system, and yet they use the excuses as secrets, not to investigate if it violates the country’s security. If it was not so bad, what have they got to worry about? Are they not humane enough to admit how they treat their citizens unequally in prison? Followed that they got a reputation to preserve in the same image of communism based on their own secrets on how it should be.

http://www.rsf.org/a...d_article=14272

Still going on and I read that Yahoo gave out the information to the Chinese government leading to the arrest; I did say earlier that some governments could “sensor” people to censor them in court for profit except this is for another purpose involving abusive treatments and brainwashing.

I can slightly see when they say “the Chinese are not to be trusted”, manufacturing of some dangerous goods and the experiences of Chinese take aways but I do not believe for every Chinese person or place. Confused over "no respectful rights for two years", what I understand here is that they can do whatever they like to the depths of murder, and as a secret it can be possible to class that like an accident, is that not right?

This to me is like a form of slavery, abusing, attacking and murdering people uncivilised secretly. It has gone public, so here are some pictures of people who were tortured:

http://www.faluninfo...torturemethods2

Other than what I hear about those who visit China, this is for me to think twice about. What do you think of the information and the pictures of the tortures, do they appear fake or convincing?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 26 February 2006 - 10:07 PM

[barend]

there is no 'civilized society'

people are fucked where ever you go... it's the one constant on the planet.

and lecter... what problem are you having with my statement?
(i think you misunderstand my argument)

[Deepsycher]

As for China, will it be too civilised to state what is expected to and from the citizens living there or is it like an advertisement to their way of Communism on the cheap?

[Zatoichi]

The idea of communism = wow, that's a pretty cool idea
communism put into practice by everyone so far = wow, that f-ing sucks. Glad I live in the US

the idea of democracy = hey not bad, of, by, and for "the people"
democracy put into practice by US = only stupid people are being fooled by us nowadays, and we're still getting away with all of this shit

the idea of theocracy = well, if I'm a part of that religion, it would probably be a very good place to live
theocracy put into practice = We have so been screwing you over and you still haven't figured it out.

the idea of monarchy (assuming that all of the nobles and royalty truly care about the people's wellbeing) = probably the best in my opinion
monarchy put into practice = just revolt, your rulers probably suck and it isn't worth waiting for things to get better.

Need I go on?

[Deepsycher]

I can see a bit of that picture, how about a society where everyone is required to work together?

(1) Everyone gets equal for what they need but not restricted within reason.
(2) Bartering introduced as an attempt to make a fair living to others.
(3) Parliaments, MP's are voted by the people based on their performances and not the other way round.
(4) There are no leaders in parliament but instead every party gets a role to serve in the country.
(5) Any conflictions are dealt in the best interest of both sides by trying to find solutions that work effectively.
(6) The pay remains the same as public pay and bonuses are based on performances of public satisfactory.

Is any of this or something like this possible?
I will return later.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 26 February 2006 - 11:40 PM

[Jordan]

China seems so outdated. Their use of censorship, supressing religious and even health groups, spewing forth silly communist progaganda, all seems so last century.

Even there own people see it. My good pal has told me that when he lived their, he felt the government, through the school system, tried to poison peoples minds. They even preach Western Hate. They focus on drugs and crime.

It's almost embarissing at this point. I wonder why the US never tried to invade them. Why did the US become so lax about Chinese communism? Was it because of North Korea? Why did they allow North Korea to stand? I never understood Nam or Korea. It seems like the US pussied out.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 27 February 2006 - 02:54 AM

[Deepsycher]

"Pussied out" as to a scared cat running away:

I think America could have a reputation to keep up on not bombing everywhere, but why bomb China if it is one of the goldmines for the manufacturing and mass production of the cheapest goods globally. Just to state: Not saying that every trade there is always the cheapest compared to other countries, just the limited choices of mass produced products I see around.

Apart from the Japanese participating into the war, I am looking for why they were intercepted by the nuclear bomb, could it have also been related to how well manufacturing and trading was doing, as to nothing important to trade at that time?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 27 February 2006 - 08:27 AM

[Gobbler]

Ehem... one word Jordan: Nuclear missiles.

[barend]

that's two.

[Jordan]

Well I find it funny that they attacked Cuba,the North Vietnamese, and Korea without worrying about Soviet nuclear backlashes. When China stepped up they quickly signed for peace treaties or at least backed off.

The US is suppose to be this gigantic warmachine. I really don't buy it any more. They only beat the Nazis because they came late when German troops were already stretched thin. The Nazi government already signed their fate when Hitlers fanatical obsession with Stalingrad destroyed the 6th army, the largest Nazi ground force ever assembled. Also, bailing out Mussolini scattered the German front even further. German armoured divisions in N.Africa was a total waste of time for the Wehrmacht. They could have been helping in Russia or helped secure better positions else where. The Russians won world war 2, imo. The Americans did support them with tanks but they were junk and Soviet soldiers hated them. The tanks could not even pierce panzer tank armour with their pea shooter cannons.

Since then they've embarked on a series of campaigns that merely served to carve up countries. There was never a decisive victory. Save Iraq, twice. But You'd think China would be a bigger concern. American companies still did business with Germany during the war. China seemed to get off real easy.

I guess I'm confused as to why the US, being so bent on stamping out communisim, did not hit it's largest supporters.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 27 February 2006 - 09:39 PM

[Slade]

The US was more concerned with saving it's own hide, protecting trade with its allies and ensuring that it kept the upper hand in world affairs. Communism was just that era's catch-all. Now it's terrorism.

And if you'll recall stuff about the Cuban missile crisis, that was the Soviets.

Edit: Cerebral flatulence.

This post has been edited by Slade: 28 February 2006 - 12:56 AM